Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20100504City Planning & Zoning Meeting -Minutes - May 04, 2010 Comments 2 Conflicts of Interest 2 Code Amendments -Signs 2 Silverlining Ranch 91490 Ute Ave -Change in Use City Planning & Zoning Meeting -Minutes - May 04 2010 Stan Gibbs called the regular meeting in Sister Cities Meeting Room to order at 4:30pm. Brian Speck and Jim DeFrancia were excused. Commissioners present were Bert Myrin, Jasmine Tygre, Mike Wampler, Cliff Weiss, LJ Erspamer and Stan Gibbs. Staff in attendance were Jim True, Special Counsel; Drew Alexander, Chris Bendon, Jennifer Phelan, Claude Salter, Community Development; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. Comments Bert Myrin asked for a board with the rules to follow and a map of the City. LJ Erspamer found both for Bert. Myrin asked that the blueprints come in at 11" x 14" instead of the larger size. Jennifer Phelan replied that if the plats were 11" x 17" you might not be able to read them. Chris Bendon noted a Thursday morning meeting for the Aspen Area Community Plan and asked for a show of hands. Bendon introduced Claude Salter as the Zoning Officer and worked as a plans examiner for the City up until a year ago and she was rehired as the zoning officer. Conflicts of Interest Jasmine Tygre disclosed that she has worked in the past and will probably work in the future for the listing broker of the Silver Lining property. Tygre said that she was very familiar with the property and was on P&Z when it was first zoned. Tygre said that she felt that she had strong feelings. Bendon said that the item was being continued. Jim True said that she could recuse herself. CONITNUED PUBLIC HEARING: Miscellaneous Code Amendments Stan Gibbs opened the continued public hearing. Drew Alexander explained that in December they provided a power point of visual examples of the existing conditions of signage; what types of signs are allowed, problems they have and some very initial solutions. Alexander said there was a round table discussion on the signage code and what things that P&Z would like to see amended with a lot of great feedback from that discussion and it has shaped the sign draft even further. Alexander said that they felt that they have had that big picture discussion; he will go through this brief power point; there were 3 sections. Alexander said the first topic was the signage allotment system in Aspen has enforcement difficulties; it was a system that relied on landlords to manage the signage allotment and all tenants in a building would have to share the certain percentage. Alexander utilized power point to give 3 or 4 options for each topic. 2 City PlanninE & ZOninE Meeting -Minutes - Mav 04, 2010 This fist slide was to retain the existing aggregate; the outcomes would be continued tracking difficulties; excess field time by the zoning officer. Alexander said they sometimes come to the realization that they have no signage for a new business but it's kind of a perfect world system. Alexander said for Option B the language is in your packet for the draft sign code, which grants 6 square feet of signage for every business and 10 square feet for a lodge use. Wampler asked if the 6 feet was for the store. Alexander replied that the 6 feet was per street facing business; each frontage that a building has would get a separate 6 foot allotment. Chris Bendon stated the big change here was that all of building tenants come on a first come first serve; first tenant in can take all the signage and it wouldn't be fair to the rest of the businesses and right now the landlord resolves all that but they don't and Community Development ends up having those discussions. Bendon says this goes per tenant; you are a tenant you get 6 square feet and if you have 2 facades you get 6 and 6. Cliff Weiss asked what happens to non-street facing businesses, alley businesses, sub-grade businesses, or above grade businesses. Alexander answered that typically when they enforce signage for below grade businesses with the fagade facing a street but it is not visible from the street you still get that street facing allotment even though the business is not directly on the street the business is still street facing and would get that signage allotment for that street. Bendon said the idea was that nobody gets less than 6 feet. LJ Erspamer asked about Peter Fornell's sub-grade spaces. Alexander replied that they each get a 6 foot sign above their space and showed what a 6 foot sign would look like. Drew Alexander said the transparent or cut out letter signs are counted as half of their area; so if you used cut out letters you get 12 feet if you put a box around the sign. Gibbs asked if it because the cut out letters were hard to read. Alexander replied that it was the transparency of the sign; you could still see the brick behind it, the architectural feature. Weiss asked if he could do a one by six square feet. Alexander said that Ute Mountain with the flowers and an ice axe would still have to fit into the 6 square feet. Weiss said that he wanted this kept simple. Gibbs said it reduces the judgment about it and the letter then morphs into a block letter and a block letter becomes a solid; the simplicity would be to make it a box. LJ Erspamer asked if every sign that was up now was grandfathered. Weiss noted there were a lot of illegal signs now. Bendon in response to LJ's question they would want to walk through that with the city attorneys. Wampler suggested a 3 year grace period and then they had to comply. Bendon said there were more limitations on amortizations; a way to walk back out to the current code. Weiss about signs like Kenichi that clearly violated the current sign code. Bendon 3 City Planning & Zoning Meeting -Minutes - Mav 04 2010 responded they gave Kenichi two options to come into compliance one was to comply with the old sign code and the second was to comply with the new code; so it's still up in the air. Alexander said this was a far more simplified process and reduces the handholding of the zoning officer; permits would be understandable by staff and the applicant. More than likely it would be more restrictive than the current sign code to this new draft there will be a total reduction in the amount of signs; a smaller business would maybe get more signage. Bert Myrin said eliminating the building total may cause a problem with more and more floors and the buildings are getting bigger. Wampler said that in any big city you walk into the building lobby and there is your sign. Bendon said a way to handle that would be that offices get smaller signs or a category for a building with "x" tenants everyone gets less. Myrin said even the Elks Building had a sign for all of the offices. Wampler said real estate offices were now on the second floor and you have the address and you still have to walk into the building to see what floor they are located on. Weiss suggested that when you have multiple offices that all the offices have to be on that 6 square foot sign. Erspamer agreed with Cliff but said maybe larger than 6 feet and all have to fit on it. Weiss said make it fit 6 feet. Bendon summarized that one business gets one 6 foot sign; offices get one 6 foot sign for all the offices in that building list on the one sign. Gibbs said let's make sure that is reasonable for that office building. Weiss said that the Wheeler was a good example of one big sign. Alexander said the Wheeler has window signs and awning signs; there is a risk. Weiss asked how many public amentias were there with the information kiosks. Bendon stated that on page 25 they put in movie and theatre performance signs; this allows you to put up movie theatre posters and that is different from a retail space. Weiss asked if there was a number of these signs allowed, it says sign not to exceed; how many can they put up. Bendon responded as many as you can put up; you could relate it to the number of theatres that they have; it is a different type of use. Weiss said that these were semi-permanent so he wasn't referring to window signs where posters usually go; where do you see the sign that says Wheeler Opera House. Bendon replied it was on an awning and the window boxes. Weiss said he just wanted to make sure of this. Alexander stated that buildings like the Jerome that contain one tenant and occupy half a block or more shall be granted 20 square feet of signage per applicable frontage. Bendon stated there was a lot of variability in how much sign allotment you can have; it was all based on the building and there are some single tenant large buildings, City Market, the Jerome and other large building, which is a fairly big change. Weiss asked if City Market would be allowed to have a 20 square foot sign. Bendon 4 City Planning & ZOnIRQ Meeting -Minutes - May 04, 2010 replied that would be all their signs combined together. Alexander said that there cannot be a 20 foot wall sign; that is capped at 6 feet. Alexander said you go to the commercial sign menu. Weiss said that would fit in under the 6 and 10. Bendon said that is where staff gets into this amortization of the replacement of an existing sign. Gibbs said 20 square feet was the allotment for the whole building. Alexander said there was a good example on page 37 of the staff memo; retain the existing; propose the 6 square foot 10 square foot and special exceptions for half of a block or more buildings. Alexander said awning signs were currently allowed on any level and they do count towards your allotment so if you invest a lot of your sign in your awnings you will use up all of your signage allotments. Alexander said there were no color restrictions; there is no sign limitation other than the signage allotment itself and they can be on any level. Alexander said that Option B was the only major change was the ability to do signs on second and third floors. Weiss said the concept of an awning was to protect the sidewalk so it wasn't not whether it was on the first floor or not; there was an exterior access to these businesses; there are some buildings with setbacks on third floors that have awnings that are meant to protect from the rain or whatever and he said that he doesn't really mind them what he minds is the amount of graphics that they are allowed on these awnings that are everywhere; they are so prolific that there was no point to walk under. Wampler said to keep the sun out and Tygre agreed and Erspamer said the awning also keeps the LJV out. Wampler said the Marcus Building on Durant with the going out of business signs everywhere. Myrin said that building has awnings everywhere. Erspamer said the ground floor has bigger awnings and they get smaller as you go up; you can see a sequence and he thought that it made the building look good. Weiss said that he had a real issue with these awnings; it's a grey area that he would go around for the 6 foot option. Bendon said in the option you can have awnings anywhere on your building; you just can't have signage other than the first floor or ground floor. Weiss said that any shrewd designer can see that all of your awnings are all of the same color and then you have one sign where the letter are 12 inches tall and stretch out 6 feet across one awning it still ties together all the awnings and you get the impression that it is like whitespace in designing. Wampler asked if that was bad. Myrin said that the letters were still restricted on that awning. Weiss explained whitespace is the eye is drawn to the center and the whole thing ties together; the eye sees the whole picture and it is red and jumps out at you and all you can see that is a 40 foot long stripe and the eye is drawn to the one in the middle with the letters on it. Weiss said that if enough businesses get hip to that; you will get a lot of 40 foot awnings. Erspamer asked Cliff if he was against awnings or the signage on the awning. Weiss replied that he was against the 5 City PlanninE & Zonin¢ MeetinE -Minutes - Mav 04, 2010 proliferation and quantity of awnings because if he were a retailer with a 6 foot restriction so if he had any kind of street frontage he would go to awnings; he would move to awnings because he could do just about anything. Erspamer said the awnings are established outside the code from what P&Z was doing; is that correct. Bendon replied that was correct. Erspamer asked if they were going to discuss that issue but P&Z was going to discuss the writing or lettering on awnings. Bendon said that if the extent of awning was a problem then we can go back and address those sections of the code or whatever we have to and it was a valuable question; is it awnings and the proliferation of awnings or the signage. Wampler asked if you could put awnings up if there were no windows. Weiss said there were awnings without windows. Bendon said for there to be an awning there had to be a window or door. Gibbs asked if there were awnings up how much signage do we want to put on those awnings; what was the current. Alexander replied that it all depends on the business subjective to where the business is located and the building size. Wampler suggested using that Marcus Building and the amount can those businesses put up. Bendon answered what we went with on the last one, each business has 6 square feet and you can put up 4 feet on the door and have 2 feet left. The commissioners agreed that no awning unless there was a door or window. Jim True asked if it was a 6 foot aggregate what does matter if it's a second or third floor. Weiss responded the reason was that it would look like Manhattan. Weiss said that businesses look for visibility, drive by or walk by and the higher up they are and the bigger the letters the further they can be seen. Bendon asked the Commission if they had a view on awnings with lettering on them on the second and higher floors. Tygre and Myrin said that they did not. Gibbs said they still have an option if it's a retail knitting shop on the second floor he said that person should be able to put up a 6 foot sign. Gibbs said that if he put the sign on an awning it could be smaller than if he put a big sign over the door. Erspamer voiced concern about signage everywhere; all of a sudden you have signs on the walls; it just takes away the charm and character of a small city by having signs everywhere. Weiss said that you are getting closer to a billboard because you have such a big contiguous area of solid color. Tygre asked how many windows are that big that the awning would fit over; how many 40 foot windows do we have downtown. Erspamer replied he didn't think that there were any on second floors. Gibbs reminded the commission that on second floors you can't use the face of the awning; you can only use the edge of it. Weiss said let's say that you've got a window that's 6 foot but what if you had another 6 foot window and there is 2 feet in between do you allow the awning to go over both windows. Tygre and Bendon replied no they had to be 2 separate awnings with the maximum of 6 feet of signage for both awnings. 6 City PlanninE & Zoning MeetinE -Minutes - May 04, 2010 Bendon summarized you can have 6 square feet of signage either all of it on an awning or a portion of it; an awning has to be over a door or a window. Bendon said there were 4 in favor of that, 1 not and 1 so so. Erspamer asked where on the awning is the sign located and he felt it should just be on that bottom hanging part, not on the top with consistency throughout the town. Alexander said the think was the higher up that your awning is the more it loses its impact for a sign and you can't use the top and a business that may be on the second or third floor if they don't use their awning for a sign they may use it in a different way; they may use a blade sign or a wall sign instead of advertizing on whitespace way up on a high. portion of the building. Alexander said by not allowing above where the awning is visible you will be promoting blade signs, wall signs, window signs and identification signs. Erspamer said the idea would be if you don't have that little hanging flap at the bottom then you can put it up above; is that what you are saying. Alexander said above ground level the awning sign itself doesn't become as impactful as a ground level or garden level business. Weiss said the hypotenuse of the triangle and there is nothing in the code that says that you couldn't have a 15 degree angle so you have a very tall awning; this only says the distance away from the building at 3 to 5 feet; it doesn't say what the hypotenuse can do. Gibbs replied that was true. Tygre asked Cliff if the lettering would be on the hypotenuse rather than on the edge. Weiss said it was the unintended was what he was worried about because he thought about the way he would do it for one of his clients if he designed it; it's how he would approach it as code gets tight. Weiss said they were looking for a big area of whitespace as we can even though he just needs 12 inch lettering. Tygre said she thought that there was a difference because LJ and she are thinking of an awning with a hanging flap and the lettering would be on the hanging flap not on the hypotenuse; and Cliff is saying but people would put it on the hypotenuse. Weiss said that they would because you can't put 12 inch lettering on the flap; those flaps are generally less than 6 inches and have curly- cues and things like that. Tygre said that's what makes them so cute. Weiss said that he wasn't saying that you are wrong to do this. Alexander said the only letter is the first letter that can be 18 inches of letter and the rest 12 inches. Bendon asked if it would be more restrictive about this size of the lettering regardless of whether it was on the flap or the hypotenuse. Weiss replied no; he thought that LJ and Jasmine have a solution that is interesting to him because if he is stuck with just putting it along the fringe then he will have a problem because he will have much smaller lettering and it's not so easily seen from a great distance; now you are giving people more of a reason to come down to street level or to something than can be seen from the street rather than from way up high; way up high you wouldn't see 4 inch lettering. Bendon said the traditional awning has the skirting around it and the contemporary ones don't. Gibbs said the pitch of most buildings 7 City PlanninE & Zonin¢ Meetin¢ -Minutes - Mav 04 2010 is about 10 foot and the doors are about 6 foot so the only place an awning can go is about 3 or 4 feet above it and go out 3 or 4 feet; there aren't a lot of angles that would work on most buildings. Gibbs said that we didn't have buildings with really tall facades that you could have the awning technically go all the way up to the roof; he thought that maybe we were a little too concerned about this because there weren't geometrically and realistically nobody builds an awning. Gibbs said that we could have the definition of an awning and it has to be between 30 and 50 degrees at the angle of the top of the awning so 45 would probably be the optimum anyway; then if you want to restrict how much signage there is; instead of putting a 6 foot square sign on the face of the awning because maybe they are at the first floor level they can only put it on the flat. Weiss asked if they had a picture of Marcus' building from across the street at the gondola plaza. Erspamer asked Jasmine if the size of the flap needed to be limited. Tygre replied yes; you have an awning and the awning must be over a window and can't stretch across 2 windows and if there was lettering on it the lettering has to be on the flap and the flap can be no larger than "x" and then you have ideally the people who want to do a nice attractive small lettering on the flap that's fine; nobody gets to write on the hypotenuse. Tygre said if they don't have a flap they don't get lettering. The Commission agreed with Jasmine. Bendon said that there should be a cap on the lettering on the awning; he said once you start limiting the lettering size that when the upper floor awnings become kind of meaningless. Bendon said then you are attracted to the blade signs and wall signs that are more effective. Weiss asked on the Marcus Building how large would you allow the letters. Bendon answered the same everywhere; 6 inches. Weiss said that he could go 12 inches up there. Wampler said a 12 inch flap was too big and other commissioners agreed and a 6 inch flap was okay. Weiss said that 6 inches was a deterrent because on the second floor 6 inches was barely legible from the street. Bendon said that maybe there was a different allotment for a graphic and 6 inches for lettering. Weiss said that if you are trying to make a deterrent to people having signage up high on awnings then you have to be restrictive with letter size because if you give him no restriction on the letter size and it's just a square footage allotment he will find a way to make that visible from the other side of town especially when he is up high and especially if it is a building like the Marcus Building where you are coming out of the Nell Hotel and all the businesses across the street and that place can be seen from a lot of places, the gondola plaza; so he would come up with something that you can read from city market. Bendon summarized that it's part of your overall signage allotment, the awnings can be 8 City Planning & ZOnInE Meeting -Minutes - May 04, 2010 anywhere over a window or door on any floor of a building, the lettering can be no greater than 6 inches anywhere on the awning for below grade businesses. The commissioner's agreed to this 5-1 for the lettering anywhere on the awning. Alexandra said that if you wanted color restrictions we could have very simple awnings like one color or stripped with 2 colors but no reflective. Weiss said another way around your design parameters was that if you have a very recognizable logo and you could put that on in a number of places on a number of awnings which can be seen from a tremendous distance and that's another way to put more signage in more location by using the recognizable icon without the lettering. Tygre responded that you still have the same total aggregate. Weiss said you do but he was just giving all of the ways that they can play the game. Bendon said if you were Ski Company and you wanted to use your leaf icon you could do 6 of them and now you are done. Weiss asked if lettering included graphics. Bendon replied yes. Weiss said to keep that in mind when you write the language. Tygre said you want to make it a total whether it was graphics or lettering and she thought that was a very good point. Bendon said that you get 6 square feet and you can put whatever you want in there. Myrin asked about the green glow from the limelight sign that covers more than 6 square feet of the building; does that count as their sign. Bendon replied it was exterior lighting. Myrin said the lighting behind the sign draws attention to the commercial business there. Weiss asked if Community Development was allowing exterior lighting on signs outside. Bendon replied there was a whole exterior lighting code. Alexander stated the sign code had lighting requirements in it; everything on that sign board facing down; there could be a glow coming from the building and washing down but you can't have anything going up. Alexander said that sandwich board signs have been discussed and based on the feedback they have drafted a different sandwich board sign section for the sign code. The existing conditions for sandwich board signs with extremely part time enforcement because everyone has them and any retail or restaurant can have them but we find that offices are doing it and everyone along the pedestrian malls and creates these messy streetscapes. Alexander said that the new language would only allow sandwich board signs for businesses without direct or street level access. There would be about 90% less sandwich board signs in the Commercial Core; the sidewalks and pedestrian malls; the enforcement for the enforcement officer would be easier. Alexander said that certain buildings like Fat City, Peter Fornell's building; there may still be an abundance of signs in front of those types of buildings. There were two different options that were to be discussed. 9 City Plannine & Zonine MeetinE -Minutes - May 04, 2010 Alexander said the second option was to allow sandwich boards with businesses that were not perpendicular to the right of way or located on an upper level. An example was the Marcus and that garden level portion there is sort of a horseshoe pattern there were businesses that face into the courtyard, some of the businesses face the street; what this language says that only those business that don't face the street can have sandwich board signs or the businesses that are on any upper level in town. Alexander said another example was the Zocalito alleyway and CB Paws; those are not perpendicular to the right of way so they could have a sandwich board sign even though they are not on an upper level. Myrin asked the difference between B and C. Alexander said they just went through C. Alexander said Option B anyone on the garden level in the Marcus building could have a sandwich board sign and on an upper level as well and anyone that doesn't have a direct access way off of. Bendon stated the Marcus Building would look like it does today under B; one of the things that we have talked about with sandwich boards was to allow them all; allow nothing and take the program away entirely and that's kind of dominated the discussion. Bendon said they were trying to provide some options that were in between that you would see fewer sandwich board signs but are still in a very predictable and definable way to do it. Myrin said the more restrictive one was C and he asked Chris if he could get C through City Council. Alexander replied that they were in a reduction in signs. Erspamer and Myrin supported C. Erspamer said the bike racks had to come off of the sidewalks and put them on the streets. Wampler said that people would quit riding bikes and put them back in their cars. The commission agreed on Option C. Wampler asked the size of a sandwich board. Alexander replied the current code said 9 feet per side. Wampler said 9 feet was too big. Gibbs asked why it couldn't it be 6 square feet. The commission agreed with 6 foot per side for sandwich boards. Weiss asked about a plastic case display case an inch thick as a sandwich board sign for a yarn shop with yarn goods could then be seen on the street. Alexander said that on page 33 of the packet there were sign types and structural characteristics; "F" is portable sandwich board signs and they added the line "sandwich board signs shall not be utilized as merchandise displays" ; so that sort of kills that. Weiss asked about relief signage with 1 to 2 inches or limit to 2 dimensional and put that in or do want allow him to be creative to what extent. Bendon responded his question was is that bad; Cliff described the yarn thing or that there is a play. Weiss asked if he could use lights. Alexander replied that you 10 City Planning & Zoning Meeting -Minutes - May 04, 2010 can and they have to be encased in rope lighting. Weiss asked what about a speaker. Erspamer asked if anyone wanted to talk about real estate signs; Josh Saslove brought up smaller signs years ago. Erspamer said he liked the smaller sign they looked more sophisticated. Alexander answered on page 46 of the memo and page 6 of the resolution addressed real estate signs. Bendon said that real estate signs have not changed in size at 3 square feet. Myrin said let's add an "f' to #20 regarding no real estate signs in the public right of way. Jim True said that could cause some problems because it was a content issue; he said that he wasn't sure that you could do that; if you are CJ Paws you could have a sign in the right of way but if you are a realtor you can't, that's content based and could be a problem. Myrin said that Jim was saying in the west end you can't limit what's in the public right of way. True responded that clearly you can limit what's in the public right of way but not based on content; so if you say real estate signs are not okay but some other sign is, that is where you have a problem. True said that you can change it for areas; your regulation says you can have a sandwich board sign but let's say there was a realtor facing the alley and the realtor could not have a sandwich board sign. Myrin replied no these were the "for sale" signs like a property on the west end; so if I can't put the "for sale "sign on his property and so he can't put the sign in the public right of way. True said that you are not supposed to put it in the public right of way. Myrin agreed; but say you build up to the public right of way like the Dancing Bear; does that mean that they can't have any real estate signs outside the Dancing Bear. True replied under that circumstance they would have to be on the wall because it can't be on the right of way. Myrin said that there were some real estate signs scattered in the right of way. True said that he didn't think that those should be in the right of way. Bendon said that the zoning officer's full time job would be pulling those signs from the right of way. True said that was an enforcement issue but a person does not have the right to put a sign in the right of way except for a few exceptions for sandwich boards. Alexander said that they don't allow sandwich board signs for offices anyway. True said that you can limit it to retail and not office use. Bendon said that signs in the public right of way was covered on page 29 saying that if it interferes with normal emergency use in that right of way and any sign in the public right of way may be ordered removed by the City Director. Myrin asked if that could be repeated in #20 so it would be clear. Bendon said to keep in mind that even if you do this unless it's some really big problem it's not going to be a huge priority the code enforcement officer; if Community Development had a thicker budget and staff he would go after those signs. Myrin asked but this is in 11 City Planning & Zoning Meeting -Minutes - May 04 2010 the right of way. True said it was complaint orientated. Myrin reiterated that no signs be placed in the right of way be included in #20 as "f'. Erspamer said that they should not operate on complaints but consistently enforce to a reasonable approach on things. Weiss said that window signage was what he can't do on the building he'll do in the building and what came to mind was the way Louie Vuitton put a back lit mural transparency around Christmas time in the window and it was huge. Myrin said that it wasn't back lit it was Christmas lights. Weiss said there was a picture or photograph that was huge, full window size, it was 6 foot tall and a good 10 foot long and it was back lit and it was inside setback from the window a foot or 2 and it stretched the entire length of that shop's window. Weiss commented that when City Market was in front of P&Z someone suggested that they put pictures of fruit in the windows. Tygre thought that was a great idea. Bendon said it was his idea. Bendon said the code prohibits back lit window displays or signs. Gibbs said that a window display light can't be then put out of the sign and felt it was a light pollution issue. Alexander asked if they would be comfortable if they worked with the language and the lighting in the draft. Bendon said no back lit, no direct lighting, the illumination of the window display being minimal. Alexander said that the definition of a sign doesn't limit it to be exterior; it does say that a window display is merchandise in representation. Weiss said that the 6 foot applies to the windows as well. Alexander replied that it technically should but it is not one of those things that they get complaints about and enforce it. True said they got the complaint the other day about the Denimax for sale sign and they went to Municipal Court. Weiss said that if the sign code says that windows fit in with the 6 foot sign limitation was that clear. Gibbs said that an exempt sign was a sign within an interior of any building; that sounded like a window display sign to him, that was #12 on page 5. Alexander said the sign violation was 20 square feet stuck to the window. True said the judge enforced the order to have them take it down. Weiss said it should be clearly stated in the code. Bendon said they would be more explicit about it. Weiss stated that as the code gets more restrictive people will get more creative. Wampler asked to give the enforcement officer some teeth so they could "red tag" if not complied with in such amount of time and close down the business. True said you "red tag" someone you still have to go to court and get an order to do something. Wampler asked if you could just leave them "red tagged." True responded that "red tagging" and closing the doors were 2 different issues. Wampler asked if you could put the power in to close the doors. True replied not without a court order. Bendon said 99% of any enforcement issue has ended in a phone call and the next 99% with a visit to the store and the 12 City PlanninE & Zonine Meeting -Minutes - May 04, 2010 remaining 1 % that goes forward gets cited for court. True said when a letter is sent with the potential of a $1,000.00 a day fine; that gets their attention. Myrin asked about the strip lighting on the top of Dancing Bear. Erspamer said that it was in the back of their party room on the top floor because you could see it from the gondola. Gibbs said it was on the face of the building. Myrin said it was on page 49 "Strip lighting outlining commercial structures and used to attract attention for commercial purposes". Myrin asked about the vending machine down on Mill Street. Wampler said it was a coke machine by the Laundromat. Bendon said that on page 27 there was new language allowing for "vending machine signs internally illuminated but not flashing signs on vending machines, gasoline pumps, ice or milk containers, other similar machines indicating only the contents of such devices, the pricing of the contents contained within, directional or instructional information as to the use and similar information." Myrin said that changed from the current code that doesn't allow that. Gibbs said it wasn't a reality change. Weiss said that he did not agree with this code amendment because there could be a proliferation of vending machines outside. Erspamer said there were only a few so he was fine with the change. Gibbs said he would be inclined to leave the machines but require that they be in interior spaces or spaces that don't face the right of way or something to that effect so that you could get the illumination off of the public right of way. Myrin said that vending machine really lights up that whole parking lot and it was intended to do that; it was advertising their product. Myrin said that it was more than 6 square feet and violates our code. Bendon replied that they can look at what other places have done but they may very well not find anything. Tygre stated that they were taking about exterior. Myrin replied exterior and as Stan said if it was interior and not facing the outside that was fine but it was the one that was sitting outside in your setback on the mall. Tygre said that vending machines were made nationally and not for different communities; you can have a prohibition from those machines just as light pollution from any other machine; couldn't you enforce it the same way. Tygre asked if they should be allowed to be on the street. Tygre thought that P&Z could ask for these machines to be indoors or in a recess where they don't spill light into a right of way, you can't have them where they produce light pollution in the right of way. Gibbs said that in a gas station it probably doesn't matter but if it is sitting there glowing. Tygre reiterated that couldn't we write language like that; any exterior vending machines cannot allow light pollution. Bendon asked the commission who was okay on the new vending machine code language. There was only one in favor of the new language. Bendon asked if anyone was for no vending machine lighting. Myrin suggested 13 Citv Planning & Zoning Meeting -Minutes - May 04 2010 somewhere in between. Bendon said that lighting could only be 6 square feet, you can only be illuminated if you were in a highly lit area or otherwise internal to a space where there was no light pollution to the street. Alexander said the way light pollution works for commercial now was that your light can't pollute onto a separate property; so it could say vending machines that were illuminated now can't spill onto adjacent properties. Bendon with minimal lighting that doesn't spill onto other properties or the right of way. Myrin asked about the neon signs in the liquor store by Clarks that you can see from the Rio Grande Trail that were facing outside. Bendon replied that if you see them from the outside then they are not allowed. MOTION: Cliff Weiss moved to approve Resolution #10, 2010 with the amendments discussed; seconded by Bert Myrin. Roll call vote: Wampler, yes; Tygre, yes; Weiss, yes; Erspamer, yes; Myrin, yes; Gibbs, yes. APPROVED 6-0. PUBLIC HEARING: Silverlining Ranch 91490 Ute Ave. Change in Use Stan Gibbs opened the public hearing. Chris Bendon stated that he had the affidavit of public notice for posting, publication and notice by the applicant. Bendon said there was also a request from Mitch Haas requesting this continuance. MOTION: Cliff Weiss moved to continue the public hearing for the Silver Lining Ranch to May 18, 2010; second by LJErspamer. All in favor, APPROVED. PUBLIC HEARING: Miscellaneous Code Amendments Stan Gibbs opened the hearing on more miscellaneous Code Amendments. Chris Bendon said the next round of Code Amendments were going to be difficult. The calculations and measurements was what the zoning officer uses to actually do the calculations and measurements, FAR, heights, how setbacks are measured, what can be allowed in setbacks, what is not allowed in a setback, how demolition is actually measured, all of those things. MOTION: Mike Wampler moved to continue the miscellaneous code amendments to May 18, 2010, seconded by Cliff Weiss. All in favor, APPROVED. Weiss spoke about leaf recycling in the spring and the waste company will no longer take yard waste. Erspamer answered there was the Spring Cleanup through the City. Adjourned at 7:00 14